Home page of BPDFamily.com, online relationship supportMember registration here
April 28, 2017, 06:44:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Administrator: heartandwhole
Moderators: Meili, once removed
Member support team: gotbushels, Tattered HeartTurkish, wendydarling, Woolspinner2000
  Directory Guidelines Glossary   Boards   Help Please Donate Login Register  
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
26
Pages: [1] 2 ... 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How common are personality disorders?  (Read 35005 times)
Abigail
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 769


« on: December 03, 2007, 12:48:06 PM »

  Not sure where to put this, but I thought others might find this interesting.

  Many of us have talked about the fact that the often quoted rate of 2% of the population having BPD seems rather low.  Some experts have acknowledged that there hasn't been enough research and that the figure may actually be higher.

  Well, I have come across some information and did my own computation using some other reported figures.

  I have been reading a book regarding the latest scientific research on ADHD in adults, "ADHD in Adults--What the Science Says" by Russell Barkely, Kevin Murphy and Mariellen Fischer.  It just came out and it documents two studies done on ADHD in adults.  The estimates of adults with ADHD is between 5 and 6% of the population, according to the book.  In addition, they studied some of the other comorbidities that accompany ADHD in adults and within their two samples, between 24 and 29% of adults with ADHD also had Borderline Personality Disorder.

   In reviewing some information from the website of the NEA BPD and a subsequent email to Dr. Robert Friedel (author of "Borderline Personality Demystified" and one of the founders of the aforementioned website), the research indicated that 25% of those with BPD also have ADHD.

  If roughly 25% of adults with ADHD also have BPD, then that would mean between 1.25 and 1.50% of the population have both ADHD and BPD.  And if only 25% of those with BPD have ADHD also, then the total population of individuals with BPD would also be between 5 and 6%.

  Hope I didn't confuse anyone with my computations.  Which figures are the most reliable?  Any comments?

  Abigail
Logged


Skip
Site Director
***
Offline Offline

Person in your life: Ex-romantic partner
Posts: 5771


« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2008, 02:07:51 PM »

I think your calculations are really interesting, Abigal. Here is the study we are basing the "site" numbers on.

Prevalence, Correlates, Disability, and Comorbidity of DSM-IV Borderline Personality Disorder.

Bridget F. Grant, PhD, et.al

Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 69:4, April 2008.

See article here


The research was conducted by the Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry at the National Institute for Health (NIH).

34,653 face to face interviews were conducted in 2004 - 2006.

Some conclusions are:

~ the prevalence of the disorder is  5.9%

~ that prevalence in men is the same as women.

~ BPD was more prevalent among Native American men, younger and separated/divorced/windowed adults, and lower income and education.

~ BPD was less prevalent among Hispanic men and women, and Asian women.

~ the study details many other conclusions such as BPD prevalence was greatest among people with bipolar disorder (50%), panic disorder, or drug dependence.  Smokers were also more likely to have BPD.

~ 24% had comorbidity with another personality disorder.  The rates of NPD/BPD and ASPD/BPD were higher among women.

~ the greatest decline was seen after 44 years old.

Respondents were asked a series of questions about how they felt and acted most of their adult life.  They were instructed not to includes symptoms that only occurred when they were depressed, manic, anxious, drinking heavily, using medicines or drugs or physically ill.  They had to agree that there was also some social or occupational dysfunction.

This was an epidemiological study, not a clinical study - the diagnosis was determine by answers to survey questions, not a clinical work up.  The population studied was random members in the community - this is not a limited study of people seeking treatment.
Logged

Matt
Retired Staff
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 15393



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2009, 09:20:25 AM »

I'm not sure what it may mean that the study was based on answers to questions.  On the one hand, I'd say that means many of them may lie and so the study can't be accurate.  But the MMPI-2 has scales to assess the individual's honesty in taking the test, and gives results even if the individual tries to fool it.  (My ex scored very low on the honesty scales but still showed a lot of psychological problems anyway.)

It seems to me that a clinical study would be more effective - something that doesn't rely on the patient to be honest - but I don't know if such a thing exists.  That's one of the challenges:  Only by living with someone and observing their patterns of behavior can you compare it with those characteristic of BPD to draw a conclusion.  I was amazed when our marriage counselor told me my then-wife probably had BPD;  after just a short time she saw it clearly, but couldn't give a formal diagnosis.  I guess that just means she's very perceptive and led the conversation in ways that drew out the information she needed.
Logged

Skip
Site Director
***
Offline Offline

Person in your life: Ex-romantic partner
Posts: 5771


« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2009, 01:05:53 PM »

... I'd say that means many of them may lie and so the study can't be accurate.  

Matt, can you elaborate on the practical aspect of your thoughts here.  Are you thinking that 5.9% is too high? too low? that this study meaningless? studies in general are meaningless?  that we should we reference a more trusted source?

This study was conducted by the Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, USA.   It was published in a leading peer review journal, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.  The editor is a Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine.
Logged

Matt
Retired Staff
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 15393



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2009, 01:19:47 PM »

... I'd say that means many of them may lie and so the study can't be accurate.  

Matt, can you elaborate on the practical aspect of your thoughts here.  Are you thinking that 5.9% is too high? too low? that this study meaningless? studies in general are meaningless?  that we should we reference a more trusted source?

This study was conducted by the Laboratory of Epidemiology and Biometry, Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, USA.   It was published in a leading peer review journal, The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.  The editor is a Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine.

I'm probably just exposing my own ignorance here.  I don't know the answers to any of those questions, and I certainly don't know if the 5.9% is too high or too low.  The credentials of the researchers are surely impressive, so maybe they know a way to get the truth from people who tend to lie about themselves;  the MMPI is said to be meaningful by somehow discerning the truth within the lies.  At the same time, many of us here have seen credentialed professionals struggle to see the truth when looking closely at a single individual - taking many hours to try to figure it out and not always getting to the truth.  So I don't know if there is a method of getting the truth from a lot of (presumably disordered) individuals through a survey.

I can say from experience that credentialed scientists can use established methods to gather information, but if there is a flaw at the core - such as getting information by asking people who have a motive to lie (or say things that aren't true) - the results of the study may not be meaningful no matter how impressive the credentials of the researchers.

We can also note how this number tends to vary - from what I've read, generally between 1% and 10%, but sometimes even higher - which would suggest that it's not easy to pin it down.

So I guess my short answer would be, I don't know if such a survey is meaningful or not.  My guess is that the only way to understand this would be to put audio/video recording devices in the home.  But that may be ignorance on my part;  I may just not understand the methods being used.
Logged

Unreal
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 705


« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2009, 07:12:43 AM »

Quote
We can also note how this number tends to vary - from what I've read, generally between 1% and 10%, but sometimes even higher - which would suggest that it's not easy to pin it down.

So I guess my short answer would be, I don't know if such a survey is meaningful or not.  My guess is that the only way to understand this would be to put audio/video recording devices in the home.  But that may be ignorance on my part;  I may just not understand the methods being used.

Confidence intervals.  We'll never pin it down exactly.  Epidemiological research on a large scale presents many challenges.  When you're talking 1000s of participants, it is too expensive to do a full clinical evaluation on everyone.  Who is going to pay for it?  So, they give questionnaires with cheaper personnel and try to extrapolate from that.  The logic is a bit different on a meta-level like this (30,000+ patients).  I haven't read this particular article (no access right now). 

My guess would be that this is a structured interview/survey of some sort that it is probably fairly lengthy (given the topic. . . this wasn't specific to BPD).  They are looking for patterns that are consistent with various disorders.  I think the data are meaningful, but not ideal. 
Logged
G.J.
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 624


« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2009, 02:33:16 PM »

I have selected some articles from the National Institute of Mental Health and the American Psychiatric Association.  The statistics seem to vary; however, overwhelmingly - if you take an average of the estimates - the numbers seem to add up to over 20% (1:5) of the population having a diagnosable mental disorder.



According to the National Institute of Mental Health, "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year."

www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml

The article also states:  "About 6 percent, or 1 in 17, suffer from a serious mental illness."  (It didn't specify which were considered serious and which were not.  This article does not include BPD, NPD or AsPD in it's findings.)


A study published in 2004 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry summarizes that, "14.8% of Americans (30.8M adults) meet diagnostic criteria for at least one personality disorder."  Not included in this study were BPD, NPD and Schizotypal PD's "due to the large number of symptom items required to diagnose those disorders."  (Also noticeably missing was BiPolar Disorder.)

www.pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/17/12

Obsessive Compulsive PD 7.9% (16.4M)

Paranoid PD 4.4% (9.2M)

Antisocial PD (Sociopath) 3.6% (7.6M)

Schizoid PD 3.1% (6.5M)

Avoidant PD 2.4% (4.9M)

Histrionic PD 1.8% (3.8M)

Dependent PD 0.5% (1M)

The US Department of Health also republished this report:  www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm


I'm not entirely sure what "Schizotypal PD" is, and in Googling it, I can't find too much readily available.  So let's just put that aside.  But here are the statistics for the other 3 PD's not included in this report:

Narcissistic PD:

Psychiatric News, published by the American Psychiatric Association, summarizes that, "The lifetime prevalence of narcissistic personality disorder among American adults is 6%."

www.pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/43/15/38

Borderline PD:

I can't find a good NIMH or APA article referencing this, but most sources estimate between 1 - 3%, with most stating 2% or 4M people.

Point of interest, another article states:  "The prevalence of Borderline Personality Disorder is estimated to be about 2% of the general population, about 10% among individuals seen in outpatient mental health clinics, and about 20% among psychiatric inpatients. In ranges from 30% to 60% among clinical populations with Personality Disorders."

www.borderlinepersonalitytoday.com/main/dsmiv.htm

BiPolar Disorder:

From the same NIMH article listed above, "Bipolar disorder affects approximately 5.7 million American adults, or about 2.6 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year."


So, adding all of that up:  OCD, Paranoid, AsPD, Schizoid, Avoidant, Histrionic, Dependent = 14.8%  Plus NPD, BPD and BiPolar = 10.6% for a grand total of 25.4% or 1:4 people in the US.  For argument's sake, lets assume those numbers are high, and we subtract 5% off of that total for good measure.  That puts the prevalence of PD's at 1:5 people.  Let's assume that those numbers are WAY off, and we subtract 10% off the total prevalence.  That STILL puts the prevalence of PD's at almost 1:6 people.


Look at this another way...  Personally, I find the Cluster C PD's (BPD, NPD and AsPD) and BiPolar Disorder to be the least readily identifiable of the PD's, and the most destructive to the people that get involved with them.  Just using those numbers:

BPD 2% (1:50)

NPD 6% (1:17)

AsPD 3.6% (1:28)

BiPolar 2.6% (1:38)

That's a total of 14.2% or 1:7 people have a pervasive, mostly incurable, destructive personality disorder, that has been known to wreak havoc in the lives of those around them...  Take it a step further, and let's say that those NPD estimates are off (they seem to vary), and we'll use 2.5% for NPD to keep it amongst the average of the rest.  That still puts the numbers at 10.7% or more than 1:10 people have a destructive PD.

When you think of the BPD estimates of being only 2%, it sounds small.  But not when you consider that's the equivalent of one out of every 50 people in the US - and the majority of them are not in mental institutions.  The scariest to me is the AsPD (Sociopath - no conscience) estimates of 3.6% or one in 28 people in the US.  Granted, many of these people are locked up in prison - but certainly not the majority.  Assuming that a full 1% percentage is locked up (that's a third of all AsPD's and is probably being generous) - that still leaves 1 out of every 38 people you come into contact with having absolutely no conscience, compassion, or sense of responsibility towards any other human on earth.


All of this is just some food for thought the next time you visit a dating website, get on an airplane, go to the mall, or look around your family dinner table.   grin grin grin
Logged
elphaba
Retired Staff
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3941

No good deed goes unpunished....


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2009, 03:07:24 PM »

I had seen a report that had claimed the rate of BPD was much higher 1%...like 5.9%... from Time Magazine.

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870491,00.html

A 2008 study of nearly 35,000 adults in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry found that 18 million Americans — had been given a BPD diagnosis. As recently as 2000, the American Psychiatric Association believed that only 2% had BPD

18 MILLION Americans...this is only those given a BPD diagnosis...and if you figure a minimum of 2 people that are directly and significantly impacted by the behaviors of each of those...that makes 36 million Non's...in the US alone.  Not to mention the likelyhood of millions more that are undiagnosed.

Logged


Abigail
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 769


« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2009, 03:27:16 PM »

THe neaBPD.org reports 1-2% --they usually have the latest information on BPD and articles from the top experts.
Logged
Matt
Retired Staff
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 15393



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2009, 03:52:48 PM »

This was an epidemiological study, not a clinical study - the diagnosis was determine by patients answers to survey questions, not a clinical work up.

Does anyone know how meaningful such a study is, or if there is a way to make it meaningful?

My ex lies, so anything based on her answers to questions - unless it's something like the MMPI-2, which is designed to see through lies - might be worthless.
Logged

Links and Information
CLINICAL INFORMATION
The Big Picture
5 Dimensions of Personality
BPD? How can I know?
Get Someone into Therapy
Treatment of BPD
Full Clinical Definition
Top 50 Questions

EDITORIAL DEPARTMENTS
My Child has BPD
My Parent/Sibling has BPD
My Significant Other has BPD
Recovering a Breakup
My Failing Romance
Endorsed Books
Archived Articles

RELATIONSHIP TOOLS
How to Stop Reacting
Ending Cycle of Conflict
Listen with Empathy
Don't Be Invalidating
Values and Boundaries
On-Line CBT Program
>> More Tools

MESSAGEBOARD GENERAL
Membership Eligibility
Messageboard Guidelines
Directory
Suicidal Ideation
Domestic Violence
ABOUT US
Mission
Policy and Disclaimers
Professional Endorsements
Wikipedia
Facebook

Google+(Member)
Google+ (Professional)
BPDFamily.org

Your Account
Settings

Moderation Appeal
Become a Sponsor
Sponsorship Account


Pages: [1] 2 ... 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!